Most expensive form of home entertainment. (HDTV and so forth)

Discussion in 'U.K.' started by J0hn, May 10, 2007.

  1. J0hn

    J0hn Phantom

    As like many of you cute chipmunks and chipettes, I have discovered HD and Bluray disc. Unfortunately I nearly had a heart attack when I looked at how much it would cost in all to get HD in my home. Lets break:

    Standard HD tv at 15". About five hundred pounds
    Blu ray player. About £1000
    Blu ray disc. Fifty pounds each.

    So for a good collection of hd movies, look at spending a grand or so
    In total for HD entertainment: £2500. The HD counterpart comes in at half of Bluray player except it has lot fewer functions and all you would do is save five hundred pounds, but would still need to fork out £2000.

    What do you think of HD and do you believe HD will ever take off from the shelves or will it remain grounded as one of the most expensive forms of HOME ENTERTAINMENT DVD/TV?

    Sky currently have HD broadcasts, but you cannot record them on compatible discs as they have not been invented yet and once again you would need an appropriate recordable BLue ray or HD recorder which hasn't been invented yet./ what about HD sound. Currently no HD sound equipment. No wonder Ray is blue.
  2. lithium

    lithium frogboy

    A 15" HD screen would be pretty pointless...
  3. J0hn

    J0hn Phantom

    Most would probably spend 4 grand on a 28 inch HD ready tv set. This means that the final bill would be near 7 grand. Nothing wrong with digital. lets hope prices come down.
  4. phoenix_indigo

    phoenix_indigo dreadfully real

    where are you getting your prices? there's a 52" Sony LCD HD tv in the Argos book with a stand for £999. Granted, it's still pricey, but nothing like the 4 grand you are quoting for a 28inch. It's pointless getting plasma as they tend to go bad after a few years - from what i've heard.

    and well, not that i recommend it for gaming at all (as Sony dropped the ball big time) but if you want a cheaper Blu-Ray the PS3 does come with one and that will only set you back £400(ish).

    So, really you can do the full setup with a proper sized telly for £1500.

    This is why we don't have a HDtv yet. It would be nice, but damn ... so expensive and I just don't believe going into unnecessary debt.

    As far as standardizing I think it will happen but will take time. I mean, when DVD's came out they were WHOPPINGLY expensive. Now though, you can get a DVD (last few years movie) for under a fiver and buy a cheap-end DVD player for £20. Though still there are many people that don't have DVD to this day and are still using VHS.

    Already the prices for HD-ready TVs have dropped drastically. I remember only a few years ago you couldn't even get a 15" HD tv for under a grand. Now like I said above you can get a 52" for that price. It will take time. By this time next year, it will be even cheaper.

    Blu-ray is going to be overpriced from the word "go" because it's a brand new technology. I still don't understand the novelty personally as DVD manufacturers don't even use up the data space they have on a normal DVD much less needing 3x the space (or whatever it is). I don't believe (though I could definitely be wrong on this one) that the actual picture quality is better between a Blu-ray disc and a HD compatible disc. It's all about the data space on the disc. A Blu-ray disc has more layers and they can put something like 3x the amount of data on a Blu-ray disc than you can on a DVD disc. But, at this point, like I said manufacturers don't put the data on a DVD disc they could fit on it. Mainly because people like the idea of a second disc with special features or to have a 3-disc box set of their favourite trilogy or what have you. In reality all that data could go on a single disc.

    I think it will be at least 5-10 years for Blu-ray to take hold. If you wanted to do a fancy schmancy HD setup, just get an HD compatible DVD player and buy normal HD discs. Don't bother with the Blu-ray .. unless you have to have the latest fad.
  5. mbworkrelated

    mbworkrelated Banned

    phoenix_indigo how did you get your head screwed on so firmly ?.

    Imho with the decline of certain mediums of media - others will all come down in price.
    I'm sure in ten years or so we will be saying ''HD what ?''.
  6. phoenix_indigo

    phoenix_indigo dreadfully real

    LMAO ... if only you REALLY knew me. ;)

    *looks around ... now where'd i put that head again?*
  7. mbworkrelated

    mbworkrelated Banned

    :) ok i was flattering you - i thought i was in the dating forum.

    ''Hubby and I at Stonehenge''

    ooops -
  8. phoenix_indigo

    phoenix_indigo dreadfully real

    aww shucks . *blushes* you can flatter all you like. still makes a girl feel good. just well, won't get you anywhere ... well i'd give you a cup of tea or something. ;)
  9. mbworkrelated

    mbworkrelated Banned

    STORY OF MY LIFE - :lol:
  10. J0hn

    J0hn Phantom

    50 quid a blue disc isn't my idea of value.
  11. phoenix_indigo

    phoenix_indigo dreadfully real

    did you read what i typed?

    i'm not talking about blu-ray discs at all. they are over priced.

    normal HD compatible discs seem to run about £16 and that's off of Amazon. I mean the brand new movie Smokin' Aces is only £22 on an HD DVD.

    Blu-ray IS VERY EXPENSIVE and will be for some time. I don't think anyone said it was an 'idea of value'. I said it was only something to get if you crave for the latest fad. But, J0hn, you don't seem to be the type to only go for something that is the latest and greatest, if you were ... you would have had HD years ago. ;)

    I think shelling out for Blu-Ray is excessive and pointless.
  12. J0hn

    J0hn Phantom

    I am quite traditional. Digital for me is the future. HD is way ahead of time and even though I like HD, there is digital. In the beginning, the whole idea of digital was for a cd quality picture which would eliminate ghosting and other interference that analogue signal tends to attract. However, I haven't seen HD discs. Bluray discs are probably from Blu ray manufacturers. It seems that we have HD and Blue ray in competition. I reckon HD will win. There are some dvd players that can upscale. I am happy with digital only.

    Also I don't mind vhs. I have more vhs, atleast 100 and have 3 dvds. I have no credit card to go onto Amazon. Plus I prefer to see, feel and then purchase the same instant. I hate shipping and deliverys. I do like modern technology and am probably a renaissance mouse.
  13. lithium

    lithium frogboy

    What I don't really understand is why these new HD disc systems still rely on the old MPEG-2 format, but just cram more information into the same space. There are far better digital compression systems around than MPEG2 (which is mid-nineties technology) which if incorporated into new player technology could have made DVDs effectively hold far more data and Bluray / HDDVD could have been capable of HD pictures and held far more hours worth of data....
  14. J0hn

    J0hn Phantom

    I think there are preferred formats. Like with Digital tv, they have Mpeg system. I think we are now on a 4 or 5. Later on they may update the MPeg on some of these HD Discs. Blu ray has it all basically, but HD has limitations. THis is similar to Betamax and VHS. I am quite happy with digital picture without spending a mini fortune on a blu ray system that may not even get off the ground. It would be like investing in Betamax and then a few months or years later, everyone is using VHS. Best sit back for twenty years and see which way these two formats go. Personally I believe HD will win, even though it has limitations and drawbacks.

    I am still surprised that manufacturers still produce tvs for analogue instead of getting shipments of digital only sets. This way could mean far more features fo the digital revolution set for 2012.

    But as for HD, this could be the winner, but am not buying yet. Most if not all Blu ray or HD will be in Region 2.
  15. lithium

    lithium frogboy

    I might be wrong about that, both Bluray and HDDVD use VC-1 and H.264 but are backwards-compatible with MPEG2 DVDs. Teach me to post when I don't know what I'm on about:D
  16. J0hn

    J0hn Phantom

    HD and Blu ray are both the same. They are a disc that produces HD video data. They are backwards compatible probably because they are still running along side DVD, in that you can play a HD in a dvd player but you won't get hd. The dvd player(Traditional player) has to recognise the discs content. So anything familiar, the dvd player will play the film but in its native digital. It is a bit like playstation 2. You can play both formats. PS1 games, or ps2 games.Ps3 can take both and blu ray because it is backward compatible with predocessors. IN the future, cassettes will be erased and the cd will be replaced by MP3.
  17. lithium

    lithium frogboy

    No, backwards compatibility means that HD/BD players will still play old DVDs, old DVD players will not play HD discs because of the different physical specifications of the new system
  18. phoenix_indigo

    phoenix_indigo dreadfully real

    DVD disc capacity

    Single layer capacity single sided 4.7GB
    Single layer capacity double sided 9.4GB

    Dual/Double layer capacity single sided 8.5GB
    Dual/Double layer capacity double sided 17.1GB

    Disc structure of HD DVD disc

    HD DVD has a single-layer capacity of 15 GB and a dual-layer capacity of 30 GB, the HD DVD-RAM has a single-layer capacity of 20 GB and a dual-layer capacity of 40 GB. Like the original DVD format, the data layer of an HD DVD disc is 0.6 mm below the surface physically protecting the data layer from damage. The numerical aperture of the optical pick-up head is 0.65, compared with 0.6 for DVD. All HD DVD players are backward compatible with DVD and CD.

    Single layer capacity single sided 15 GB
    Single layer capacity double sided 30 GB

    Dual layer capacity single sided 30 GB
    Dual layer capacity double sided 60 GB

    Technical specifications for Blu-ray disc

    • About 9 hours of high-definition (HD) video can be stored on a 50 GB disc.
    • About 23 hours of standard-definition (SD) video can be stored on a 50 GB disc.
    • On average, a single-layer disc can hold a High Definition feature of 135 minutes using MPEG-2, with additional room for 2 hours of bonus material in standard definition quality. A dual layer disc will extend this number up to 3 hours in HD quality and 9 hours of SD bonus material.
    Single layer capacity single sided 25 GB
    Dual layer capacity single sided 50 GB

    Now again, after all that technical data ... I can understand the need for more space as High-Def movies use alot more data; but still ... manufacturers still aren't using the full capability of DVD storage. It's not even an encoding problem as you suggested, Jon (Lith - so as not to get confusing) at least it doesn't seem to be based on the data given. I mean anyone that has ever downloaded a movie knows the standard size is between 1-2 gigs of data, maybe a bit more if it's super long. Considering most new DVDs that come out are all dual layer, why are they letting all that space just go to waste, and then give you a second disc with 2 hours of special features. Just doesn't make sense.

    I personally have plans to save for an HD telly. I don't plan on actually owning one though for at least a year. Hoping that the prices will drop even more and giving plenty of time to save to get a really nice big one cos with a huge movie collection and the cost of the cinema it'd be nice to have a "cinema quality" experience from the comfort of the living room without the screaming babies and annoying people on their mobiles.

    Blu-ray is cool technology, but I just don't get the point. Then again, 10 years from now, we'll all be wondering how we survived without it. Tis hard to believe 10 years ago (roughly) you could survive with a 3 gig hard drive on your computer and always have TONS of extra space.

    Ah technology ... more ways to part us all of our hard earned dosh. ;)
  19. lithium

    lithium frogboy

    Actually this is an encoding issue - MPEG2 used on DVDs is a much, much less efficient compression format than the type used for most films you'd download, which is DivX or Xvid. They aren't "official" codecs but they are just far, far better ones. When you convert a high quality 2 hour DivX video (about 1.4GB) to MPEG2 for DVD it will fill the whole 4.7GB of the DVD and still be lower quality.

    That said I don't know much about VC-1 or H.264 (MPEG4) which is going to be standard on HD and BD players...

    As for dual layer DVDs, they are used either to cram on more than about 2 hours of video at reasonable quality, or to encode the film at a super-high bitrate so you don't notice the compression effects of crappy old MPEG2. If the film is longer than 2 hours it really needs to be dual layer to get a high enough bitrate or you will really start to notice the distinctive blockiness of that too-highly-compressed look. The technology really is operating at its technical limits with MPEG2.
  20. J0hn

    J0hn Phantom

    I believe that DVD, even Blu or HD discs and the good old fashioned Cd/minidisc can only hold a certain number of chapters, tracks. With disc, there is far higher compression. There has to be sound , bit sacrifice in order to cram everything in. Thats disc technology for you. Personally I think DAT is the best format but people have lost interest and once again we are forced to get something new. Apparently new is better and old is as exciting as a dead horse that has been flogged twice.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice